Federal Government

<h2>Expert Observer</h2>

With the Federal election all but wrapped up, what can prospective buyers expect from the change in government, with the Labor party&rsquo;s win bringing a raft of policy changes.

With a look to address the property market&rsquo;s biggest issues,&nbsp; the headlining &lsquo;Help to Buy&rsquo; scheme is likely to be popular with prospective home buyers, as it provides a more affordable entry point to the Australian housing market for those individuals on low-to-mid level incomes.

This will contribute to more equality in rates of home ownership across income cohorts, and could create more opportunities for key workers to live in more central areas.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=27815 project_image_fid=185118]

Being able to share up to 40% of the purchase price with the government, along with only a small deposit and opportunity to save on lenders mortgage insurance, helps to overcome several of the hurdles of home ownership.

Keeping in mind buyers will still have to fund their transactional costs, including stamp duties, legal costs and bank fees.

Labor&rsquo;s Help to Buy scheme will involve an equity contribution from the Federal Government of up to 40 per cent of the purchase price of a new home, and up to 30 per cent for an existing home for 10,000 Australian&rsquo;s each financial year, with homebuyers needing just a 2 per cent deposit.

With a cap of 10,000 places, the scheme could be quickly oversubscribed as prospective Australian home buyers take advantage of the leg up into the housing market, Lawless says, highlighting the First Home Loan Deposit scheme, which saw the first 10,000 places of the scheme allocated within six months.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=112253 project_image_fid=193233]

However places for new homes were not taken up as quickly, and building constraints and high construction costs could deter the uptake of a shared equity scheme for new homes.

Having said that, a higher interest rate environment, which may see lower prices, could make people more cautious of buying, reducing demand for the scheme in the short term.

Historically, residential transaction activity correlates with property price movements. Additionally, we have just been through a period of significantly elevated transaction activity, including from the first home buyer cohort, where many home purchasing decisions were likely brought forward to take advantage of the swathe of home buying grants and incentives over 2020 and 2021.

The added flexibility of buyers being able to &lsquo;top up&rsquo; their ownership stake once in a better financial position is another advantage of the scheme, although any change in the proportion of ownership would presumably be accompanied by a paydown in the share of equity that has accrued in the property back to the government.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=3260 project_image_fid=62316]

Help to Buy scheme

<ul>
	<li>Government helps with up to 40% of property price for new homes, 30% for established, households source the rest of finance with as little as 2% deposit. Government holds a part ownership stake in the property, which can be bought out over time.</li>
	<li>Spots: 10,000 ▪ Income cap: $90k for individuals / $120k for couples</li>
	<li>Property price cap: varies by region, from $400k up to $950k ▪ Restricted to owner occupier buyers who don&rsquo;t currently own a property</li>
	<li>Commences from July 2022 Although the scheme is expected to be popular among buyers, Lawless warned anyone considering the scheme should be aware of the risks associated with buying on such a small deposit.</li>
</ul>

[smartcode_project:default project_id=6515 project_image_fid=68832]

With the housing market probably heading into a downturn over the coming year or years, some buyers may find their home is worth less than the debt held against it.

It&rsquo;s important to know if the government will share in the downside risk if the property is sold while in a negative equity situation.

KeyStart Loans in WA is a good example of what can happen to a shared equity scheme in a declining market. According to the WA government, the portion of KeyStart loan accounts in default did rise between January 2017 and September 2019, from 0.92% to 1.21% of KeyStart accounts, in the midst of a long, large housing downturn across WA.

However, he also added the default rate is still relatively low and the scheme has helped thousands of people into home ownership, saying, the nature of the housing and economic downturn in WA has posed a lot more risk to serviceability than the relatively tight labour market conditions we see in Australia at the moment.

While the Help to Buy scheme will help thousands of Australian&rsquo;s enter the property market, it&rsquo;s only addressing the symptoms of housing affordability rather than aim to actually fix the underlying issues.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=7020 project_image_fid=25155]

Similar to the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme, the new Labor Government appears to be adjusting from housing affordability solutions to more pragmatic policies that target home ownership, avoiding any downward pressure on housing prices.

It is also worth considering any demand-side incentives can add upward pressure to home prices. For this reason, the limited number of places in this particular scheme, along with price caps and income caps, should help to contain some of the excess demand that could result in upward pressure on prices.

Help to Buy is restricted to Australian&rsquo;s with a taxable income of up to $90,000 for individuals and up to $120,000 for couples. Capped at 10,000, applicants are also required to be Australian citizens and first home buyers.

Regional First Home Buyer Support Scheme 

<ul>
	<li>Government provides a deposit guarantee for regional home buyers with a deposit of at least 5%</li>
	<li>Spots: 10,000</li>
	<li>Income cap: $125k for individuals / $200k for couples</li>
	<li>Property price cap: varies by region, from $350k up to $800k to be reviewed half yearly</li>
	<li>Restricted to owner occupier buyers who haven&rsquo;t previously owned a property and have been living in the region for at least 12 months</li>
	<li>Commences from January 2023</li>
</ul>

[smartcode_project:default project_id=94147 project_image_fid=197738]

The Regional First Home Buyer Support Scheme extends the existing First Home Loan Deposit Scheme by providing an additional 10,000 places specifically for regional first home purchases, providing a guarantee of up to 15 per cent for eligible first home buyers &ndash; so that locals with a&nbsp;five per cent deposit can avoid paying mortgage insurance.

Based on the property price caps, the scheme is likely to be most popular for those buyers targeting a unit purchase, or lower priced regional markets where detached housing values are more affordable.

CoreLogic&rsquo;s analysis of regional Australian suburbs shows roughly one third recorded a median house value equal to or under the Regional First Home Buyer Support Scheme price cap, and 71.1 per cent recorded a median unit value equal to or less than the price cap.

The Labor party notes &lsquo;the housing crisis is hitting regional Australia the hardest&rsquo;, which isn&rsquo;t necessarily true from a purchasing perspective.&quot;

Although regional housing values have risen faster than capital city housing values over the past few years, we are still seeing the dwelling value to household income ratio across regional Australia (a ratio of 7.9 in March 2022) lower than the capitals (a ratio of 8.5).

From a rental perspective, regional renters have been dedicating a larger proportion of their incomes towards rent than the capital cities since 2017.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=3459 project_image_fid=179458]

Establishment of a National Housing Supply and Affordability Council 

<ul>
	<li>The newly established council would sit within an expanded remit of NHFIC (National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation) renamed Housing Australia. ▪ The council would: ▪ take a leadership role for setting land supply targets (in consultation state and territory governments)</li>
	<li>Establish a housing data warehouse focussed on housing supply, demand and affordability</li>
	<li>Advise on town planning policies and land supply</li>
	<li>Report on government owned land releases, rental affordability, homelessness and the number of new social &amp; affordable homes built annually</li>
	<li>Advise on appropriate housing measures within all current and future City and Regional Deals.</li>
</ul>

[smartcode_project:default project_id=108641 project_image_fid=192963]

Many of the factors contributing to worsening housing affordability, such as insuffficent land release and restirive town planning policies will soon be part of an extended remit for the reframed NHFIC, which would be re-branded as Housing Australia, The expanded role will administer the various government programs, including the Help to Buy scheme, existing deposit guarantee schemes and the Housing Australia Future Fund, as well as take responsibility for the newly created National Housing and Affordability Council and National Housing and Homeless Plan.

Lawless said NHFIC&rsquo;s expanded remit should help to address the issues that make housing unaffordable, while also providing more transparency and reporting about the release of government owned land and helping to steer policies related to social and affordable housing supply.

It was interesting to note Labor intends to fund some of these initiatives by applying higher fees on foreign buyer purchases.

Higher fees and costs associated with foreign buying activity comes after a recent history of substantially higher federal and state-based taxes on this buyer segment. In fact, this may have contributed to foreign buying approvals hitting record lows according to FIRB data.

Further disincentives for foreign buying have the potential to keep foreign purchasing at low levels, which could have a negative outcome on rental supply. Arguably, higher levels of foreign buying activity could help to alleviate the rental crisis Australia is navigating by introducing more rental housing into Australia, given that foreign buyers generally have to buy new homes.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=111979 project_image_fid=194079]

The Housing Australia Future Fund 

<ul>
	<li>A $10 billion initiative with the objective of funding social and affordable housing properties.</li>
	<li>Over the first five years the fund has a goal of building:
	<ul>
		<li>20,000 social housing properties &nbsp;</li>
		<li>10,000 affordable homes for key workers</li>
		<li>$200 million in maintenance/improvements of housing in indigenous communities</li>
		<li>$100 million for transitional housing options supporting women and children in domestic violence situations</li>
		<li>$30 million for housing veterans who are experiencing or at risk of homelessness.</li>
	</ul>
	</li>
</ul>

[smartcode_project:default project_id=90532 project_image_fid=180653]

With the stock of social housing increasing only marginally since 2006, investment in social and affordable housing is long overdue.

While the additional funding and housing support for disadvantaged sectors of the community is welcome, the 30,000 additional dwelling over five years remains insufficient.

A recent report from Brendan Coates at the Grattan Institute noted even with 100,000 extra social housing properties targeted towards people in most need, more than two thirds of low-income Australians would remain in the private rental market where national rents are currently rising at around 9% per annum.

National Housing and Homelessness Plan 

<ul>
	<li>Aims to establish key short, medium and longer term reforms making it easier for Australians to buy a home, rent and provide shelter for homeless Australians.</li>
</ul>

There is little detail so far on this initiative and the plan is yet to be formulated. However, the Labor party has expressed a commitment to working with a broad range of stakeholders including the states and territories, local governments, industry bodies, superannuation funds and other relevant experts on how to address housing, finance and urban development.

Tim Lawless is CoreLogic&#39;s Research Director.

Labor’s Help to Buy scheme will involve an equity contribution from the Federal Government of up to 40 per cent of the purchase price of a new home, and up to 30 per cent for an existing home


tlawless

What a Labor Government means for housing affordability and the Australian property market

The federal government has announced  that the federal budget will increase the maximum amount of voluntary contributions that can be released under the First Home Super Saver Scheme from $30,000 to $50,000. 

The FHSS Scheme was launched in the May 2017 budget designed to allow first homebuyers to use their super account to save some of the money they need for a home deposit.

The First Home Super Saver Scheme involves making before-tax contributions to superannuation.

The deposit comes by portioning a part of the aspiring first home buyer's income to be put into super account before tax.

It provides a lower tax scenario for the deposit being accrued. 

All contributions must be voluntary contributions, so Superannuation Guarantee (SG) amounts paid by your employer cannot be directed towards the FHSS savings.

FHSS contributions using a salary sacrifice arrangements can be used.

FHSS participants can not have previously owned a home in Australia, including an investment property, vacant land and commercial property.

Purchasers are obligated to live in the property for at least six of the first 12 months after purchase.

Previously the maximum a person can contribute each year under the FHSS Scheme is $15,000, with the maximum a person can save in total under the FHSS Scheme being $30,000.

“The expansion of the First Home Super Saver Scheme to allow the funds that can be withdrawn from $30,000 to $50,000 will boost its popularity and take up," said Denita Wawn, CEO of Master Builders Australia.

"Harnessing the power of compound interest in superannuation to save a deposit makes sense,” she said.

The FHSS does not permit access to the regular 9.5% super contributions.

The number of home builders through the scheme has been limited to date given the complexity of the scheme and the years required to build up a deposit.



The federal budget will see the adjustment of the First Home Super Saver Scheme to allow the withdrawal of $50,000 in funds 

jchancellor

$50,000 to be permitted in First Home Super Saver Scheme withdrawals

<html><body>
The office of Michael Sukkar has announced the lending panel leaders that are ready to accept applications for a guaranteed loan to build a new home or purchase a newly built home with a deposit of as little as five per cent.
As part of the Federal Government’s plan to create jobs and rebuild the economy, 10,000 first home buyers will be able to purchase a new home sooner under the extended first home loan deposit scheme, which will be available until June 30, 2021.
The following lending panel members are ready to accept applications for a guaranteed loan to build a new home or purchase a newly built home: 
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top">
Australian Military Bank
</td>
<td valign="top">
Defence Bank
</td>
<td valign="top">
P&amp;N Bank
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top">
Australian Mutual Bank
</td>
<td valign="top">
G&amp;C Mutual
</td>
<td valign="top">
People’s Choice
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top">
Bank Australia
</td>
<td valign="top">
Gateway Bank
</td>
<td valign="top">
QBank
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top">
Bank of Us
</td>
<td valign="top">
IBA Group
</td>
<td valign="top">
Qld Country Bank
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top">
Bendigo Bank
</td>
<td valign="top">
The Mutual
</td>
<td valign="top">
Regional Australia Bank
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top">
Commonwealth Bank
</td>
<td valign="top">
MyState
</td>
<td valign="top">
WAW Credit Union
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top">
Community First
</td>
<td valign="top">
National Australia Bank
</td>
<td valign="top">
 
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
From November 9 onwards, the following lending panel members will begin to accept applications for a guaranteed loan to build a new home or purchase a newly built home:
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top">
Auswide Bank
</td>
<td valign="top">
Credit Union Australia
</td>
<td valign="top">
Police Bank
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top">
Bank First
</td>
<td valign="top">
Mortgageport
</td>
<td valign="top">
Teachers Mutual Bank
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top">
Beyond Bank
</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
Eligible first home buyers will also be able to take advantage of the Federal Government’s HomeBuilder programme and first home super saver scheme, and may also be eligible for state and territory grants.
In September, the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ lending indicators data showed that first home buyers are flooding into the housing market, with the number of loans to first home buyers reaching the highest number in over a decade.
These additional guarantees will drive more construction and support jobs in the economy at a time it's needed most.
 
<div data-fuse="21821171146" data-fuse-code="fuse-slot-21821171146-1" data-fuse-slot="71161633/PO_propertyobserver/article_incontent_mrec"> </div>
<div>
<div id="cpgAdsenseContainerId"><ins id="aswift_0_expand" data-ad-slot="3195360564"></ins></div>
</div>
</body></html>

jrobinson-rf4aSBido9

First home deposit scheme extension announced

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVER
It is crucial that the Federal Government continues to provide support to businesses and households in a year of unprecedented economic challenge.
However, whilst the decision to apply US-style Chapter 11 bankruptcy laws that will allow small businesses to trade their way out of insolvency is well-intentioned, it will do little to generate jobs and growth down the track.
In August, RBA Governor Phillip Lowe warned that a considerable number of insolvencies would emerge, with many businesses unlikely to recover from the ‘forced economic hibernation’ imposed in March.
That remains the case, regardless of any legislation that allows companies to continue trading while insolvent.
New CreditorWatch data has shown that new company registrations across Australia have increased by 10% in the July-August 2020 period. However, these companies will fail if they take on customers that are never going to survive without government support
.The focus should therefore be on those small businesses who have a viable capability of emerging from the COVID environment with their balance sheets intact and an ability to successfully trade without government support.
There’s a lot of uncertainty out there for creditors as they don’t quite understand how this will affect then.
Ultimately, if it helps businesses survive or at least flattens the inevitable insolvency curve, it’s a good thing. The government should be commended for working on such big policy changes in short pressure-filled time.
HARLEY DALE is the Chief Economist at CreditorWatch
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Continued government support is crucial to save businesses: Harley Dale

<html><body>
On Tuesday, the Federal Government announced a finalised mandatory <a href="https://www.pm.gov.au/sites/default/files/files/national-cabinet-mandatory-code-ofconduct-sme-commercial-leasing-principles.pdf">Code of Conduct</a> (“the Code”) to aid commercial tenancies, including retail, office and industrial tenants and landlords. Here are some summarised key points of the Code to be aware of.

<h2>This Code applies to:</h2>

<ul>
<li>Small and medium-sized businesses, with an annual turnover of less than AUD 50 million, and under significant financial distress as per the government’s <a href="https://treasury.gov.au/coronavirus/jobkeeper">JobKeeper</a> programme.</li>
</ul>
<h2>Principles under this Code are as follows:</h2>

<ul>
<li>Landlords must not terminate a lease due to non-payment of rent</li>
	<li>Landlords should, instead, offer proportionate reductions in rent in the form of waivers or deferrals</li>
	<li>Landlords’ reductions must be at least 50%, however, tenants can do away with this requirement by agreement with the landlord</li>
	<li>No rent increases should be made</li>
	<li>No interest or other forms of extra charges should be imposed with respect to the rent reductions</li>
	<li>No penalties should be imposed on tenants who reduce opening hours or tenants who cease trading</li>
</ul>
The Code is enforced under the respective state and/or territory governments. In the event of a dispute between landlords and tenants, parties should seek for a dispute resolution process from <a href="https://www.vsbc.vic.gov.au/dispute-resolution/">Small Business Commissions</a> or the <a href="https://www.asbfeo.gov.au/">Ombudsman</a>. Unfortunately, for the time being, the government has yet to announce a similar Code for residential tenancies. However, there are still measures that tenants can take to protect themselves from being vulnerable in a time of crisis like this.
</body></html>

The Federal Government's rent relief policy for commercial tenancies, summarised

<html><body>
Australia has no enduring tradition of having a national urban policy, unlike the UK, from where we sometimes import policies. The Commonwealth government has a long history of intervening in cities, from addressing housing shortages to funding urban infrastructure, but has shied away from a formal national settlement strategy.
Sometimes the Commonwealth claims to have no constitutional case for involvement in city planning. Yet we’re comfortable with spatial planning at the local, metropolitan and regional scale, so planning at the national level makes sense too.
We also seem comfortable with the federal government doing investment deals with individual cities and regions – so-called <a href="https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/cities/city-deals/index.aspx" target="_blank">City Deals</a>. Why not use this fiscal clout to drive a more systematic program of reform? Reform priorities include how our metropolitan areas are governed and how they finance much-needed investment in infrastructure.
To date, <a href="https://citydeals.infrastructure.gov.au/" target="_blank">nine City Deals</a> have been announced. These cover <a href="https://citydeals.infrastructure.gov.au/townsville" target="_blank">Townsville</a>, <a href="https://citydeals.infrastructure.gov.au/launceston" target="_blank">Launceston</a>, <a href="https://citydeals.infrastructure.gov.au/western-sydney" target="_blank">Western Sydney</a>, <a href="https://citydeals.infrastructure.gov.au/darwin" target="_blank">Darwin</a>, <a href="https://citydeals.infrastructure.gov.au/hobart" target="_blank">Hobart</a>, <a href="https://citydeals.infrastructure.gov.au/geelong" target="_blank">Geelong</a>, <a href="https://citydeals.infrastructure.gov.au/adelaide" target="_blank">Adelaide</a>, <a href="https://citydeals.infrastructure.gov.au/perth" target="_blank">Perth</a> and <a href="https://citydeals.infrastructure.gov.au/south-east-queensland" target="_blank">Southeast Queensland</a>. Could this seemingly ad hoc collection of City Deals become part of a more coherent and effective national settlement strategy? And are we up to the enduring challenge of translating these plans and strategies into action?
<h2>Are we alone in this?</h2>
In the UK, urban policy was for many years based on the principle of “<a href="https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C11251433" target="_blank">bending main programs</a>” to focus on areas judged most in need of government assistance. This was sometimes used to justify having little or no new money allocated to urban policy initiatives. However, it also reflected the reality that the main spending programs of national government are often altogether bigger with much more fiscal clout on the ground.
We also need to recognise that there is more to growth and development than investing in hard infrastructure like roads and railways. Schools, hospitals, parks and cultural facilities play a vital role in creating liveable communities at any spatial scale.
When these facilities lag behind the rapid construction of homes, our towns and cities are poorer places to live in. Nor are they places of resilience where we are better able to cope with the environmental changes and technological disruptions of the 21st century.
<h2>Why a national strategy?</h2>
The UN Sustainable Development Goals, and in particular <a href="https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg11" target="_blank">SDG 11</a>, recognise that having a national urban policy is an important foundation for achieving sustainable urban development. But in Australia we have not established long-term federal funding agreements for the sustainable development of major cities. Nor are there incentives to reform how we govern and deliver public services and infrastructure at the metropolitan scale.
A strategy of establishing metropolitan governance and financial reforms would assist Australian cities to compete and be successful in a 21st-century, globally connected world. At the same time, it would still enable decisions to be based on local preferences and capabilities. This reform could be the central feature of a national approach to partnership with cities.
This national cities partnership could provide a much better framework in which individual City Deals become more effective. An agreement could include national performance outcomes and help drive reforms to metropolitan governance and financing. It could also provide a platform for a national settlement strategy that finally gets to grips with where our growing population might live and live well.
By focusing on the metropolitan scale, we will also be better placed to answer difficult questions like “who should serve as Australia’s metropolitan leaders?” and “who represents metropolitan communities and works with them to make hard decisions about their future?”.
Currently, we have States and their agencies working at the metropolitan level. We have local governments that, understandably, focus on their local issues. Only occasionally do local councils build cooperative structures at a regional or metropolitan scale. Local government amalgamation is not a solution to this issue, as there remains an important role for local as well as metropolitan-scale institutions.
<h2>What would a national cities partnership look like?</h2>
Australia has five metropolitan areas with populations over 1 million people. When regional cities with populations over 100,000 are also considered, there are 17 major cities and metropolitan areas that could join in developing a national cities partnership agreement.
The core principles for this partnership could be:
<ul>
<li>
collaboration between different levels of government at scales that make economic sense and are socially meaningful – e.g. metropolitan regions for big cities, and perhaps major regional cities and their hinterlands in rural and regional areas
</li>
<li>
reforms to allow for the emergence of city and metropolitan leaders, who can talk on behalf of major urban communities and work with stakeholders such as business and non-government actors
</li>
<li>
working hard to engage the public as well as peak bodies in thinking about the future of their region
</li>
<li>
translating plans into action, through ongoing community support and concerted and coherent Commonwealth investment programs.
</li>
</ul>
<h2>Commonwealth needs to take the lead</h2>
Disengagement at this time by the Commonwealth government would be disastrous, so we wish Minister Alan Tudge well in keeping cities on the government’s policy agenda.
A business-as-usual approach to federal intervention may not make things worse, but it won’t set up the reforms Australian cities need to thrive and grow sustainably.
A strategy to establish a national-city partnership agreement offers a way forward. It would provide a framework to make City Deals more effective. The partnership could enable the emergence of a new breed of metropolitan and city leaders to help elevate public dialogue about the future of our cities and drive financial reforms that would allow them to deliver and be responsible to their communities.
All of this should appeal to those in government who want to see policy evolve and develop and our cities grow into more prosperous, liveable and resilient places.
This article draws on separate presentations made by the authors at the 2019 <a href="https://piacongress19.com.au/" target="_blank">National Congress of the Planning Institute of Australia</a>.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/117839/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/paul-burton-5155" target="_blank">Paul Burton</a>, Professor of Urban Management and Planning &amp; Director, Cities Research Institute, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/griffith-university-828" target="_blank">Griffith University</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/luke-nicholls-756766" target="_blank">Luke Nicholls</a>, Associate, Institute for Public Policy and Governance, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-technology-sydney-936" target="_blank">University of Technology Sydney</a>
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-patchwork-of-city-deals-or-a-national-settlement-strategy-whats-best-for-our-growing-cities-117839" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

A patchwork of City Deals or a national settlement strategy: what’s best for our growing cities? Paul Burton & Luke Nicholls 

<html><body>
The Federal government has refused to give $300 million to help Victoria's efforts to replace combustable cladding on 500 at risk apartment blocks.
"It's a bit rich now for them or any state to say someone else has to fund a problem that they created," Industry Minister Karen Andrews told The Australian Financial Review.
Yesterday it was reported the Andrews government asked to get the Morrison government to match the $300 million that they have put aside for the remediation works.
It is understood that if the Morrison government said no, there would be an increase to the building permit levy over the next five years.
The new body, Cladding Safety Victoria, will oversee the fund and will be getting to work within the next few weeks on the 15 highest risk buildings.
<div class="block-content">
<div class="styles__Container-sc-1ylecsg-0 goULFa">Planning Minister Richard Wynee said it's just as much about safety as it is about fairness for people who bought apartments in good faith and were let down by dodgy builders or dangerous building products.</div>
</div>
The move is among 35 recommendations made to the Victorian Government after 2,227 buildings had been inspected as of July 5.
Of those, seven percent were rated as an extreme risk, 40 percent a high risk and 38 per cent moderate risk.
The data, presented at an industry conference, showed one evacuation order had been issued for a private building.
Emergency orders for urgent works were made on 51 properties with building notices issued on a further 387. 
The 35 recommendations were made by the Victorian Cladding Taskforce, headed up by former Liberal premier Ted Baillieu and former Labor deputy premier John Thwaites.
 
</body></html>

wdavis-8cCN98p7xp

Federal government says no to $300 million Victorian combustible cladding compensation

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVER
As housing affordability begins to impact more Australians, it’s crucial that we understand what our government is doing to address the rising cost of housing. A return to government provides continuity around some policy items as well as a platform for new initiatives.  
It’s important to note that housing affordability affects people differently and the government will need a range of approaches in order to help more Australians. Here are some of the Coalition Government’s policy items around housing affordability – both existing and new.
The most publicised policy lauded as an attempt to lower housing prices and address housing affordability by getting more buyers into the market has been the launch of the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme, which is capped at 10,000 borrowers.
This scheme allows some borrowers to bring forward their purchase of a home, without having to pay mortgage insurance and using a deposit as low as 5 per cent. While this policy will have a significant impact on housing affordability for some buyers it’s not without risk.
Borrowers need to be careful that they can repay the loan when interest rates rise and that they don’t get themselves into financial stress by taking on too much debt, lured by a scheme that may not make housing cheaper or more affordable.
The government’s announcement of the Hon Michael Sukkar MP as Minister for Housing – while not a policy as such – is good news for housing affordability. We now have a portfolio dedicated to housing, which we haven’t seen in recent governments. 
It certainly helps that Sukkar is also our Assistant Treasurer. By combining these roles, we see a potential acknowledgement that housing plays an important economic role in Australia, for individuals but also for the economy.
The Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute recently commissioned work around this issue, as have others. So there’s a growing awareness that housing is a much broader economic influence. 
The appointment of the Hon Luke Howarth MP as Australia’s first Assistant Minister for Community Housing and Homelessness is particularly to be applauded. It may signal a focus on the crucial roles played by community housing providers (CHPs) and specialist homelessness services in the housing affordability puzzle.
In its previous term, the Government launched the National Housing Finance and Infrastructure Corporation (NHFIC). This entity enables CHPs to access loans at a discounted rate in order to build affordable and social housing.
It’s encouraging to see the NHFIC is being continued in this term. Yet, while allowing easier borrowing for CHPs is a positive step, this won’t make it easier for them to compete for land on the private market.
That’s where the Government’s recent announcement that more Commonwealth land, including defence land will be released for housing development holds great promise for CHPs and Australians who rely on access to affordable housing. 
If the government can release land for housing development with a higher proportion set aside for affordable housing – up to 30 per cent – then more Australians will be able to access more affordable rental properties.
It’s crucial that this is required by the Commonwealth when they’re selling the land. It has to be part of the release – as opposed to simply selling to the highest bidder in the market. Minister Sukkar has already flagged that he is expecting sales of Commonwealth land to include social and/or affordable housing – a very welcome direction.
This requirement would also help to forge more partnerships between CHPs and developers. By working together to develop more affordable and market housing on the same site – through tenure blind design to ensure all housing is built to the same quality – this initiative could have a very real impact on areas experiencing affordable housing shortages.
We know that supporting people into great housing helps them stabilise their lives and means we save on all sorts of costs further down the line. These initiatives are promising and to be encouraged if the Government is committed to making housing more affordable. 
Another policy to be applauded is the government’s City Deals initiative, a three-way arrangement between Federal Government, the relevant State Government and local government in an area that’s in need of economic development.
It’s important that the City Deals recognise housing as a critical piece of infrastructure in the same way as roads and hospitals. This is another policy level which could help to address housing affordability in earnest.
Finally, in 2018 the government launched The National Housing and Homelessness Agreement, which requires all signatory states and territories to have their own housing strategy. This act alone shows we’re starting to see a more combined effort on housing, which is essential if we’re to ensure all Australians can live in safe and affordable housing. 
Rachel Trigg is a director at Urbis.
</body></html>

Housing affordability – the government’s stance and implications for all Australians

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVER
The property industry has warned the Federal Government that proposed tax changes will jeopardise the international education sector – Australia’s third largest export earner worth more than $30 billion.
The Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Foreign Investors Pay Their Fair Share of Tax in Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2018 will be the subject of a Senate Inquiry to commence in November, 2018.
If passed, the Bill will result in offshore capital providers to the education sector facing a 100 per cent rise in their withholding tax rate, as the meaning of the words “residential dwelling asset” will include tertiary off campus student accommodation.
This last minute change differs from the exposure draft of the bill released earlier this year, which featured a tax exemption for assets comprising “commercial residential premises”, including student accommodation.
If passed, the bill will severely hurt the international student sector as accommodation for them will dry up quickly. Almost all of the investment in this sector is coming from overseas, yet the government wants to change the rules mid-stream and penalise them for investing in Australia.
Foreign investors have effectively created this property asset class, with 71,000 beds for local and international students have been supplied or being developed by them to date, supporting substantial local jobs in the design, construction and hospitality industry.
The Property Council of Australia has also made a submission to the Senate stating the higher tax rate would have “unintended consequences for the tertiary education sector, which relies on international capital to provide purpose-built student accommodation.
The proposed increase in the tax rate also did not provide any relief for investors who have committed to developments having entered into contracts to acquire sites, prior to September 20, 2018, when the amendments are dated to come into effect.
Not only will the proposed tax changes damage an important export earner for Australia, they will also inflate the rents in the broader rental market as students will be competing for a more limited supply of accommodation.
The sudden changes to the proposed laws will also affect Australia’s reputation with foreign investors who are seeking stability in the rules when they commit capital offshore.
According to the Department of Education and Training, there were 626,988 international students in Australia during July 2018 up 11% on last year.
Trevor Hardie is the CEO of Intergen Property Group, a company which represents overseas investors in student accommodation.
</body></html>

Proposed Federal tax changes to hit $30 billion international education sector

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Australians should be able to see who donates to political parties, but our political donations laws fall far short of this ideal. Recent reforms in New South Wales and Victoria mean that voters will have much better information about who is donating. But when it comes to donations at the federal level, voters remain largely in the dark.
Money in politics is regulated to reduce the risk of interest groups “buying” influence. Explicit quid pro quo is probably rare: as the saying goes, “you never bribe someone when you need them”. But the risk is in more subtle influence: that donors get more access to policymakers, or their views are given more weight.
Publishing information about larger donors creates a public check on this behaviour. Voters are able to see who political parties rely on for funding, and MPs are more accountable for their subsequent decisions.
States are improving transparency
The trend in the states is promising. Victoria and NSW both increased the transparency of political donations last month.
In Victoria, donations of $1,000 or more will have to be disclosed to the Victorian Electoral Commission within 21 days. Anonymous donations of $1,000 or more are banned. Victoria even capped donations at $4,000 and increased public funding for election campaigns, which might help reduce the reliance of parties on larger contributions (but also comes with other risks).
NSW’s already extensive donations regime was tightened from July 1 this year. NSW political parties are now required to disclose donations of $1,000 or more within 21 days during election campaigns (as in Victoria), and within six months otherwise.
When it comes to transparency, Queensland does one better: the 2017 state election was Australia’s first with “real time” disclosure. Donations of $1,000 or more are lodged through an online portal and are made public within seven working days. The Queensland Electoral Commission even provides interactive maps of donations by electorate.
Most other states also have decent disclosure requirements. In South Australia, parties are required to disclose donations of $5,310 or more every seven days during an election period (and every six months otherwise). The disclosure threshold in Western Australia is $2,300.
Tasmania is the only state with disclosure laws as weak as the Commonwealth’s.
These laws mean voters can know, before they go to the ballot box, who is funding parties’ election campaigns.
The Commonwealth has a long way to go
The states are taking political donations reform seriously – and that’s a good thing. But state reforms are limited by state boundaries. Until the Commonwealth catches up, we won’t be able to “follow the money” across all jurisdictions.
Under Commonwealth regulations, it can take up to 19 months for donations to be made public. That’s why Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s $1.75 million donation to the Liberal Party in the lead-up to the 2016 election was not officially made public until the start of this year.
Only donations of more than $13,800 are required to be disclosed. And there is no requirement to aggregate donations, which means an individual donor can make a series of donations below $13,800 without disclosure.
The result is a huge amount of money in the federal system that we know nothing about. Parties received more than $100 million from undisclosed sources in the two financial years spanning the 2016 federal election. Without this information, it is difficult for public scrutiny to provide a “check” on the possibility of donor influence.
Some of this money no doubt came from “mum and dad” donors contributing $100 to their preferred party. But some is probably the result of “donations splitting”, where people or organisations make multiple donations below the threshold. Some might also be income from fundraising dinners and business forums, for which attendees pay thousands for an opportunity to “bend the ear” of elected representatives.
Donations can also be filtered through associated entities of the parties. This makes money (and influence) even more difficult to track. These entities – unions, investment funds, or fundraising organisations – occasionally frustrate donations restrictions by taking money on behalf of “their” party.
In a particularly egregious case, investigations uncovered that hundreds of thousands of dollars in unlawful donations had filtered into NSW Liberal Party accounts through a federal associated entity.
Let the sun shine in
Growing public cynicism about special interest influence is partly born of secrecy. Simple changes could vastly improve what we know about money flowing to Commonwealth political parties.
The disclosure threshold should be lowered as the states have done. The current threshold of $13,800 is well above the amount that a regular voter could afford to contribute to a political cause. A lower threshold of around $5,000 would still protect the privacy of small donors while improving transparency and accountability.
Disclosure of donations should be much quicker. Queensland and South Australia now have “real time” disclosure during elections; the Commonwealth can clearly do better than a 19-month turn-around. Disclosure within three weeks – as in NSW and Victoria – would be far superior to the current system.

The states’ political donations laws aren’t perfect, but they are heading in the right direction. It’s time for Canberra to catch up.
Carmela Chivers, Associate, Grattan Institute
Danielle Wood, Program Director, Budget Policy and Institutions, Grattan Institute
Kate Griffiths, Senior Associate, Grattan Institute
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/time-for-the-federal-government-to-catch-up-on-political-donations-reform-100822" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Federal Government

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Federal Government

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News